Share
Capitao v Tanzania (Communication 53 of 1991) [1995] ACHPR 2 (22 March 1995)
- Citation
- [1995] ACHPR 2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Decision on Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 53 of 1991
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Decision on Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 53 of 1991
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Commission found that the applicant had not demonstrated exhaustion of local remedies in Tanzania or that such remedies were unavailable, ineffective, or unreasonably prolonged. The mere fact that the Tanzanian Film Company had no property in Zaire and that the embassy was immune from seizure did not suffice to establish that all local remedies had been exhausted or were unavailable. Therefore, the complaint was inadmissible at this stage, but could be resubmitted if the applicant later exhausted local remedies or proved their unavailability or ineffectiveness.
Court disposition
inadmissible for lack of exhaustion of local remedies
Orders
- The communication is declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
- The complainant may resubmit the case if local remedies are exhausted or shown to be unavailable, ineffective, or unreasonably prolonged.
02
Material facts
Parties
Alberto T Capitao
ApplicantTanzanian Film Company
RespondentEmbassy of Tanzania in Kinshasa
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Judgment Debt Awarded by Zairian Court: USD 500,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Communication / Decision on Admissibility
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the complaint is admissible before the Commission given the alleged failure to exhaust local remedies.
- 02
Whether the complainant has any recourse against a foreign state that refuses to pay a judgment debt due to diplomatic immunity.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that he has been deprived of justice and the right to have his cause heard, as he holds a judgment against a foreign state which refuses to pay and has no property in Zaire except for the embassy, which is immune from seizure. He contends that he has no effective recourse and sought intervention from relevant foreign ministries without success.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not file arguments in this proceeding. The Commission considered the procedural question of exhaustion of local remedies based on the facts presented by the applicant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 56(5)
A complaint is inadmissible before the Commission if local remedies have not been exhausted, unless such remedies are unavailable, ineffective, or unreasonably prolonged.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Commission found that the applicant had not demonstrated exhaustion of local remedies in Tanzania or that such remedies were unavailable, ineffective, or unreasonably prolonged. The mere fact that the Tanzanian Film Company had no property in Zaire and that the embassy was immune from seizure did not suffice to establish that all local remedies had been exhausted or were unavailable. Therefore, the complaint was inadmissible at this stage, but could be resubmitted if the applicant later exhausted local remedies or proved their unavailability or ineffectiveness.
Obiter and limits
- The Commission noted that diplomatic immunity may complicate enforcement of judgments against foreign states, but does not in itself render all remedies unavailable.
Court disposition
inadmissible for lack of exhaustion of local remedies
- The communication is declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
- The complainant may resubmit the case if local remedies are exhausted or shown to be unavailable, ineffective, or unreasonably prolonged.
Source and reliance status
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
Judgment
AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS
ALBERTO T CAPITAO v. TANZANIA
DECISION
Citation: Capitao v. Tanzania, Comm. 53/91, 8th ACHPR AAR Annex VI (1994-1995) Publications: IHRDA, Compilation of Decisions on Communications of the African Commission On Human and Peoples' Rights Extracted from the Commission's Activity Reports 1994-2001, at 353 (2002); Documents of the African
> Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 384 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001); (2000) AHRLR 314 (ACHPR 1995)
COMPLAINT
[1] Alberto Capitao is a businessman and a former citizen of Zaire, presently resident in Angola. He sued the Tanzanian Film Company, a state-owned company, in Zairian court, and won a judgment of \$500,000 on 4 July 1984. The Embassy of Tanzania in Kinshasa was sued simultaneously with the Tanzanian Film Company. As of January, 1985, no appeal in the case had been filed. The Tanzanian Film Company failed to pay the judgment debt. The Tanzanian Film Company has no property in Zaïre; the only property of the Tanzanian State is the Embassy of Tanzania in Kinshasa, which is exempt from seizure under the tradition of diplomatic immunity. The complainant sought the intervention of the Foreign Ministries of Zaïre and Angola where he now resides to no avail.
[2] The complainant argues that he has been deprived of justice and in essence of the right to have his cause heard, since as an individual holding a judgment against a foreign state which refuses to pay, he has no recourse.
DECISION
[3] The Commission decided that the case was inadmissible on account of lack of exhaustion of local remedies. The case can be resubmitted when the local remedies have been properly exhausted or if the complainant proves that local remedies are unavailable, ineffective or unreasonably prolonged.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.